Support NeoGAF

[HylianTom]

Yeah. Watch the DOW go UNDER NINE-THOUSAAAAAAAND! tomorrow and how no one really gives a shit. I don't even think Troopergate revelations would have much weight at this point.

At this point, it really wouldn't matter to many of us if the DOW did indeed dip below 9000.. we've already taken such a bath that another inch or two of red ink really wouldn't make a big difference.

So yeah, I'm cheering for DOW<9K, just to see the headlines. DOW<9k would give us another week of financial scare stories leading the news each evening, which would effectively cut McCain's chances to zero (compared to the maybe 5% chance he might - might - have right now).

 

[Leonsito]

Every day the same, I arrive at work, I log in to neogaf, and then click on this topic, just to see the new "attack" of the Reps, trying to find something everywhere that can give them a slight hope that they can win the election. I assume it's going to be like this the next 27 days.

Btw, seriously, what's the problem with being a socialist ? I'm one of them ffs, and half of Europe too.

I really don't understand how does this work in the US, all the terms seem changed, in Spain, the Republicans are constituted by all clases of left ideology: Socialists, Communists, Anarchysts and Democrats. In the US the Republicans are the most extreme Right ideologist ... trying to confuse the people or what ?

 

[Crisis]

Well, this:
"However, it now appears that Barack Obama was indeed a certified and acknowledged member of the DSA's New Party."
is what the accusation is but this sounds ridiculous. He just happen top find a 'scrubbed' website for the New Party and says


And thats the proof...from this blog.

There is no way this would not have come out sooner. After Hillary Clinton threw the kitchen sink at him and after McCain did all of this nonsense that they just found out about this now is impossible to believe. This story is 99% likely to be bullshit.

 

[crisdecuba]

Hrmm... that webpage from archive.org seems to be clear proof, though.

Not to say that this will sway my vote, as I do not believe the lens through which conservatives paint this picture, but the statement seems to be accurate... any idea how this could be doctored up?

- Cris

 

[AniHawk]

Every day the same, I arrive at work, I log in to neogaf, and then click on this topic, just to see the new "attack" of the Reps, trying to find something everywhere that can give them a slight hope that they can win the election. I assume it's going to be like this the next 27 days.

Btw, seriously, what's the problem with being a socialist ? I'm one of them ffs, and half of Europe too.

I really don't understand how does this work in the US, all the terms seem changed, in Spain, the Republicans are constituted by all clases of left ideology: Socialists, Communists, Anarchysts and Democrats. In the US the Republicans are the most extreme Right ideologist ... trying to confuse the people or what ?

Republicans used to be a political party. Now they're little more than a cult containing racist whites, the elite, and evangelicals. Some people, like my grandparents, bailed out long ago (Quayle was what did it in for them), while others, like my dad, thought they could help reform the party from within, but no, it's dying, and they only way they feel they can stay in power is to make their base angrier and make their base hate the other guys more (to the point of shouting folksy things like "kill him" and "off with his head"). This means labeling the other side using old-school Cold War terms, and socialist is one of them.

 

[mj1108]

There is no way this would not have come out sooner. After Hillary Clinton threw the kitchen sink at him and after McCain did all of this nonsense that they just found out about this now is impossible to believe. This story is 99% likely to be bullshit.

This is what they seem to be using as their "proof":

http://web.archive.org/web/20010306031216/www.newparty.org/up9610.html

 

[crisdecuba]

This is what they seem to be using as their "proof":

http://web.archive.org/web/20010306031216/www.newparty.org/up9610.html

So how does this get refuted?

 

[AniHawk]

So how does this get refuted?

"Are you fucking kidding me? The economy is in the shitter and you wanna talk about THIS? Are you fucking KIDDING me?!"

 

[crisdecuba]

"Are you fucking kidding me? The economy is in the shitter and you wanna talk about THIS? Are you fucking KIDDING me?!"

No, I mean the whole:

Q: "Were you a member of this group?"
A: "Nope."
Q: "You sure?"
A: "Yup."
...
Q: "Hey, so why does this archived webpage say you were?"
"[Insert refutation here]"

 

[JayDubya]

It's not like I needed any more support to call Obama a socialist. His speeches and issue stances were ample. Ties to yet another fringe left individual or group are hardly unexpected.

It's also not like most of you folks on here would view that as a bad thing.

 

[mj1108]

If this is the McCain campaign's big news then I think McCain is asking for trouble.

True.... it was in June when this news came out originally:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26913

And now it looks like conservative sites are eating this up.

 

[AniHawk]

It's not like I needed any more support to call Obama a socialist. His speeches and issue stances were ample.

It's also not like most of you folks on here would view that as a bad thing.

I think you calling Obama a socialist is different than McCain or Palin calling Obama a socialist. You have your worldview that focuses on his issue stances like you said. There's nothing wrong with that (even if I disagree with it). When McCain and Palin use the term, I really doubt their supporters understand or care what it means. It's interchangeable with "terrorist" or probably a few racial slurs in the minds of more than some of these people. I also think the GOP knows this. It gets their base fired up.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

Hrmm... that webpage from archive.org seems to be clear proof, though.

Not to say that this will sway my vote, as I do not believe the lens through which conservatives paint this picture, but the statement seems to be accurate... any idea how this could be doctored up?

- Cris

Well, the page linking to it says "After allegations surfaced in early summer over the 'New Party's' endorsement of Obama, the Obama campaign along with the remnants of the New Party and Democratic Socialists of America claimed that Obama was never a member of either organization." It could be that the group endorsed Obama and was being liberal in how they described him on their web pages. It wouldn't be the only time a group has claimed Obama.

 

[Justin Timberlake]

I think you calling Obama a socialist is different than McCain or Palin calling Obama a socialist. You have your worldview that focuses on his issue stances like you said. There's nothing wrong with that (even if I disagree with it). When McCain and Palin use the term, I really doubt their supporters understand or care what it means. It's interchangeable with "terrorist" or probably a few racial slurs in the minds of more than some of these people. I also think the GOP knows this. It gets their base fired up.

You know, I always try to focus on bipartisanship. I hate demonizing people for their political views.

But the fact that one party's base gets fired up by hope and reform while the other gets fired up by racism and name calling makes it hard for me to avoid the good v. evil distinctions.

 

[GDJustin]

So how does this get refuted?

Are you serious? A party's website claims Obama was a member of their party... and this is a smoking gun? Here, check this out:

Obama was a member of the nazi party.

There, it's on the internet now. This thread will be archived. So... my statement must be true, right?

Give me a fucking break. "How does this get refuted?" It gets REFUTED by an Obama rep saying "No he wasn't."

Edit: I am honestly flabbergasted. Anyone is allowed to say ANYTHING. If a GOP website from 96 said "GOP State Senator Barack Obama" for whatever retarded reason (practical joke, clerical error, misunderstanding, typo), would everyone now be like "WTF HE USED TO BE A REPUBLICAN?"

 

[Mandark]

It's not like I needed any more support to call Obama a socialist.

Have you read any Marx, or any major socialist thinker? Serious question.

 

[SteveMeister]

True.... it was in June when this news came out originally:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26913

And now it looks like conservative sites are eating this up.

So he's not ACTUALLY a socialist (or even a former member of the defunct New Party), he was taking advantage of "party fusion" to get a nomination. Gaming the system, basically.

 

[mj1108]

Well, the page linking to it says "After allegations surfaced in early summer over the 'New Party's' endorsement of Obama, the Obama campaign along with the remnants of the New Party and Democratic Socialists of America claimed that Obama was never a member of either organization." It could be that the group endorsed Obama and was being liberal in how they described him on their web pages. It wouldn't be the only time a group has claimed Obama.

That's exactly what it seems like.... so he wasn't a member, he was merely endorsed by them.

Even if it is just an endorsement, you can bet the GOP will try to run with it.

 

[AniHawk]

You know, I always try to focus on bipartisanship. I hate demonizing people for their political views.

But the fact that one party's base gets fired up by hope and reform while the other gets fired up by racism and name calling makes it hard for me to avoid the good v. evil distinctions.

Yeah, the DNC and RNC were like night and day. The DNC had a bit of meanness, but RNC was full of it.

 

[StopMakingSense]

I think it'll be the voter registration stuff. And it's all a smokescreen to try to hide the polls reflecting the debate bump Obama might be getting.

The New Part shit is whisper campaign calibur stuff that they don't need / want to be seen spreading themselves.

 

[JayDubya]

Have you read any Marx, or any major socialist thinker? Serious question.

As much as I could stomach, but an unironic "I am my brother's keeper" coming from someone that wants to be President sounds more than a little familiar.

 

[Mandark]

This is what they seem to be using as their "proof":

http://web.archive.org/web/20010306031216/www.newparty.org/up9610.html

Dan Parr! I know that guy. He's no commie.

What's the big deal here, anyway? I don't see anything that objectionable in their platform. It's like an anti-DLC.

 

[besada]

It's not like I needed any more support to call Obama a socialist. His speeches and issue stances were ample. Ties to yet another fringe left individual or group are hardly unexpected.

It's also not like most of you folks on here would view that as a bad thing.

Regardless of their politics, you'd think you'd at least acknowledge the New Party's role in fighting for third-party access.

By the way guys, the New Party runs Democratic candidates under the New Party line in states that either do, or historically have supported voter fusion. They're essentially a pro-third-party party, composed largely of progressive Democrats.

It's entirely possible that Obama was "their" candidate as a secondary line on the same ballot he ran on as a Democrat.

There was a Supreme court case in the 90's, McKenna v Twin Cities New Party, and I think they lost and pretty much collapsed afterwards.

Edit: Interestingly, it looks like New Party morphed into Working Families Party, which has the exact same structure, in that they primarily focus in the few places that allow fusion voting, and they cross endorse Democrats and supposedly even Republicans sometimes. Although they also run a few of their own candidates.

 

[Barrett2]

Florida in 2000 has shown that small numbers can play a huge role. I think we can agree it would be best if we fixed both problems. Too many people dismiss either just because of their political biases.

Not really. The Republican Congress several years ago commissioned a big study on voter fraud, because they were sure it was a huge problem. Only problem was, the study concluded voter fraud was statistically insignificant, and had zero ability to sway any national election.

Purging voter registration lists of thousands of eligible voters, however, is not statistically insignificant, and is a major violation of Constitutional rights. You tell me which one is a 'problem.' Read about it here. Crying and bitching about alleged voter fraud is a long-standing conservative scare tactic used to prevent poor people from voting. End of story! The Federal government concluded it was statistically insignificant.

Five years after the Bush administration began a crackdown on voter fraud, the Justice Department has turned up virtually no evidence of any organized effort to skew federal elections, according to court records and interviews.

 

[Mandark]

As much as I could stomach, but an unironic "I am my brother's keeper" coming from someone that wants to be President sounds more than a little familiar.

So I'm guessing none.

What I'm getting at is how you seem (to me, anyway) to elide the differences among people whose politics you disagree with, lumping them all together as "socialists".

Socialist has its own meaning and it's different from "not Libertarian". If you want a word for that, you've already got "statist".

It's kind of disrespectful to Obama and to the pinkos. It's not like I go around calling Rudy or Bush libertarians.

 

[mAcOdIn]

Wait, so you are saying that Obama isn't as close to socialism as you can get outside of working for the government?

Does it really matter if:
A) The state owns all businesses and pays everyone the same.
or
B) Businesses are privately and publicly owned and those who make more are taxed a higher percentage than those who make less.

It's the same theory here guys. Especially if Obama goes through and gives people who get all their taxes back or don't pay taxes a tax rebate. I mean, seriously guys, wealth redistribution is a cornerstone of Capitalism.

That's just one policy too. Rather than try and convince people that he and by extension you are not socialist you should be up front and explain why you think it's a good thing. There is no single "socialism" decree. Obama is as socialist as you can be in the United States and still try and pass yourself of as not socialist.

 

[Mandark]

mAcOdIn: Have YOU read any Marx or other big socialist thinkers?

 

[Crayon Shinchan]

The big news will be that they're gonna dump Palin, because she's gonna be indicted in trooper gate.

 

[Frank the Great]

Obama is nowhere near a socialist. Anyone who suggests as much is being either facetious or ignorant.

 

[n1n9tean]

SERIOUSLY?>>> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2000/02/18/MN32194.DTL

(I had never seen or heard of this before.)

 

[AniHawk]

SERIOUSLY?>>> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2000/02/18/MN32194.DTL

(I had never seen or heard of this before.)

So very old.

That 'news' has been around for a while too.

 

[numble]

Wait, so you are saying that Obama isn't as close to socialism as you can get outside of working for the government?

Does it really matter if:
A) The state owns all businesses and pays everyone the same.
or
B) Businesses are privately and publicly owned and those who make more are taxed a higher percentage than those who make less.

It's the same theory here guys. Especially if Obama goes through and gives people who get all their taxes back or don't pay taxes a tax rebate. I mean, seriously guys, wealth redistribution is a cornerstone of Capitalism.

That's just one policy too. Rather than try and convince people that he and by extension you are not socialist you should be up front and explain why you think it's a good thing. There is no single "socialism" decree. Obama is as socialist as you can be in the United States and still try and pass yourself of as not socialist.

Is McCain a libertarian?

 

[Kipz]

Obama is nowhere near a socialist. Anyone who suggests as much is being either facetious or ignorant.

Basically this. It's just cool to call people a socialist since anything left-wing is a derogatory term in america.

 

[n1n9tean]

So very old.

That 'news' has been around for a while too.

I know. I saw the date on the article. I just had never heard any tv news show or website mention this before. I think it's unacceptable.

 

[Son of Godzilla]

You know what's awesome? He says he calls em that because "they tortured my friends".

 

[numble]

You know what's awesome? He says he calls em that because "they tortured my friends".

They tortured all of us.

 

[mAcOdIn]

mAcOdIn: Have YOU read any Marx or other big socialist thinkers?

I read the communist manifesto, so yes.

I mean, look we could look at socialism historically if you ant, and compare Obama's policies to post revolution Russia if you want but I don't think that comparison is really apt in today's world. Further, if you look how Russia and other countries turned out you'd probably ask them if they read any Marx as well, so lets drop the name dropping as if that means anything.

Full on socialism doesn't work, just like most people have pretty much decided that full on Libertarianism doesn't work. I think many people would use socialist to describe many European nations, fuck alot of them flat out call their parties socialist. Modern socialism is a different beast. Shit, can you find me a full blown libertarian either? I don't even think you could call Jay one to be honest, he's made a lot of concessions that don't necessarily fit with his moniker.

What do you call:
Subsidized housing?
Government provided health care?
Mandated lending to low income borrowers?
Unemployment?
Government provided retirement?
Tax rebates for people who don't pay taxes?
The great majority of which is payed for by the upper class.

Look, if you're not a socialist then I have one question: Why the fuck not? These programs, like unemployment, health care, social security are all pathetic because they were handicapped. Either Fannie and Freddie should have been explicitly a government entity or not. but look what the half assed shit got you. Why pay into social security when it can't even support you when you retire? What good is unemployment when it's a pittance of what you originally made? So you mean to honestly tell me, that you as a Democrat do not want to strengthen unemployment, do not want health care for all Americans, do not want to strengthen social security or whatever takes its place, do not want to strengthen welfare, do not want more federal grants and loans for college, and do not want the upper class to pay the bill?

Because I know Democrats aren't happy with any of those programs, they were all compromised. I say this, if you want all those things and don't consider yourself a socialist than I think you're an idiot. Why would you support a multitude of failed and broken programs that's so close to socialism instead of just fully crossing that line? Is it because ya'll are scared of the term?

Personally, I don't want to pay into shit that's broken and doesn't work so I'm on the opposite end of the spectrum here, but if we are going to have all these programs why not be fucking socialist?

Truth be told, if you were an upfront socialist I'd take you, and by extension Obama, seriously. I know that it can work, you see it in many countries right now. While I tilt more to the right on everything I'd much rather be taxed and have my money do something as opposed to be taxed and still not get shit for it.

 

[The Interrobanger]

What do you call:
Subsidized housing?
Government provided health care?
Mandated lending to low income borrowers?
Unemployment?
Government provided retirement?
Tax rebates for people who don't pay taxes?
The great majority of which is payed for by the upper class.

Sounds largely like Canada to me...

 

[jorma]

I read the communist manifesto, so yes.

I mean, look we could look at socialism historically if you ant, and compare Obama's policies to post revolution Russia if you want but I don't think that comparison is really apt in today's world. Further, if you look how Russia and other countries turned out you'd probably ask them if they read any Marx as well, so lets drop the name dropping as if that means anything.

Full on socialism doesn't work, just like most people have pretty much decided that full on Libertarianism doesn't work. I think many people would use socialist to describe many European nations, fuck alot of them flat out call their parties socialist. Modern socialism is a different beast. Shit, can you find me a full blown libertarian either? I don't even think you could call Jay one to be honest, he's made a lot of concessions that don't necessarily fit with his moniker.

What do you call:
Subsidized housing?
Government provided health care?
Mandated lending to low income borrowers?
Unemployment?
Government provided retirement?
Tax rebates for people who don't pay taxes?
The great majority of which is payed for by the upper class.

Look, if you're not a socialist then I have one question: Why the fuck not? These programs, like unemployment, health care, social security are all pathetic because they were handicapped. Either Fannie and Freddie should have been explicitly a government entity or not. but look what the half assed shit got you. Why pay into social security when it can't even support you when you retire? What good is unemployment when it's a pittance of what you originally made? So you mean to honestly tell me, that you as a Democrat do not want to strengthen unemployment, do not want health care for all Americans, do not want to strengthen social security or whatever takes its place, do not want to strengthen welfare, do not want more federal grants and loans for college, and do not want the upper class to pay the bill?

Because I know Democrats aren't happy with any of those programs, they were all compromised. I say this, if you want all those things and don't consider yourself a socialist than I think you're an idiot. Why would you support a multitude of failed and broken programs that's so close to socialism instead of just fully crossing that line? Is it because ya'll are scared of the term?

Personally, I don't want to pay into shit that's broken and doesn't work so I'm on the opposite end of the spectrum here, but if we are going to have all these programs why not be fucking socialist?

Truth be told, if you were an upfront socialist I'd take you, and by extension Obama, seriously. I know that it can work, you see it in many countries right now. While I tilt more to the right on everything I'd much rather be taxed and have my money do something as opposed to be taxed and still not get shit for it.

You are describing social democracy, not socialism. European nations might consider themselves social democrat. I dont think any of them consider themselves a socialist nation.

 

[JayDubya]

What's the significant distinction between "social democracy" and socialism, 1 or 2 points either way on the ol' Political Compass?

I suppose you're lacking the level of iron fisted dictatorial authoritarianism that's a proven neccessity for "real" communism, but in Marxism, a socialist state is already a halfsies transitional movement towards the desired endstate anyway.

When you've got a giant, omnipresent government, leviathan with all the trappings, engaging in wealth redistribution and butting its nose in the economy every which way, why yes, there's a word for that.

Well, besides "leftist."

 

[iapetus]

I suppose you're lacking the level of iron fisted dictatorial authoritarianism that's a proven neccessity for "real" communism

Absolutely not a necessity for "real" communism, just an unfortunate inevitable roadblock on the way towards the unachievable dream of the real thing.

 

[JayDubya]

Absolutely not a necessity for "real" communism, just an unfortunate inevitable roadblock on the way towards the unachievable dream of the real thing.

Of course, that is what I was implying by the "'real'" in the first place.

As in, in reality, this is what happens.

 

[kkaabboomm]

so the odd's on bet is McCain's camp will try and bring up the huge news of ACORN or Obama being endorsed by the New Party in 1996?

and they think that will break through over the economy and make people switch from Obama to undecided and undecided to McCain?

 

[syllogism]

The odds are it's nothing negative

 

[kkaabboomm]

The odds are it's nothing negative

oh? sorry, just woke up and saw the links to the new party and ACORN and thought that was the general agreement

 

[jorma]

What's the significant distinction between "social democracy" and socialism, 1 or 2 points either way on the ol' Political Compass?

I suppose you're lacking the level of iron fisted dictatorial authoritarianism that's a proven neccessity for "real" communism, but in Marxism, a socialist state is already a halfsies transitional movement towards the desired endstate anyway.

When you've got a giant, omnipresent government, leviathan with all the trappings, engaging in wealth redistribution and butting its nose in the economy every which way, why yes, there's a word for that.

Well, besides "leftist."

Yes but you live in neoliberal fantasyland. That you do not see any significant distinction is not exactly surprising. Now, if you were to live in a social democrat, capitalist, "free market within fortress europa" nation with significant redistribution of wealth like i do, you would see the difference. Guaranteed. And my social freedoms and possibilities are probably greater than yours. Unless i like drugs and guns :/.

Pointing out that the socialist tool to achieve their ends is (was) nationalisation and revolution, while the premiere social democrat tools to achive a more "equal" free market-society was taxation/reform is probably pointless.

I guess its easier to just let you call Obama a socialist leviathan.

 

[Souldriver]

Of course, that is what I was implying by the "'real'" in the first place.

As in, in reality, this is what happens.

Your political views are so far to one side of the spectrum, that everything that lies on the left of it, is considered socialist.

You're basically calling all of Europe "socialist" now. Don't you think that's absurd, realizing that the EU is ONE BIG FREE CAPITALISTIC MARKET. In a lot of European countries there are coalition governments consisting of conservatives, democrats, liberals, socialists and sometimes nationalist or green parties. None of them get the upper hand (and all of them have a fairly complete program that incorporates ideas from all political sides anyway), which results in a liberal capitalistic society, but with some government control over it so it doesn't get to greedy and messy, and some social services to make sure a minimum of life quality is guaranteed.

If you're saying that social democracy = socialism without dictatorship = Europe, than you just prooved yourself that you don't know what socialism means.

I believe you've read quite a bit (a lot more than most people) about socialism, but I think you just draw conclusions way to quick. If you recognize one or two elements from the communist manifesto in modern society, you come to the conclusion that society is socialist. Well, using your way of reasoning, I could also say society is libertarian.

 

[syllogism]

Seems like it's just their new Ayers ad

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONfJ7YSXE5w

e: though this was added yesterday. It's pretty disgusting

e2: and it's way too long to be a real ad

 

[thefro]

Seems like it's just their new Ayers ad

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONfJ7YSXE5w

e: though this was added yesterday. It's pretty disgusting

e2: and it's way too long to be a real ad

Nah, they just released the URL this morning... I can't find any comments before an hour ago.

And yes, it's a web video, not an ad, zzzzz.

 

[Haunted]

I think America is one of the very few educated countries of the world where 'socialist' can even be considered an insult. :lol

I commented several pages back on this already, but again, in short: I blame both the Cold War and the Republicans for this. It's quite irritating to see it flung around as an insult or smear, to be honest.


edit: I also agree with jorma and souldriver, the difference is jarring, really.

Imagine someone using the label 'patriotic' as an insult. I believe most Americans would go "wtf?"